Assessment of the Use of a Regional Drug Information Service by Community Pharmacists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Community pharmacy inquiries received by the Regional Drug Information Service (RDIS) affiliated with the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre Drug Information Centre almost tripled between 1990 and 1995, placing significant pressure on staff and resources. A study was undertaken to determine whether the service was being used appropriately by this population. Inappropriate use was measured by identifying requests considered to be beyond the focus of RDIS, as well as those that could have been answered by the requesting practitioner using references expected to be found in a community pharmacy. Of 444 inquiries received during the study period, 56 were identified as inappropriate. Twelve requests did not pertain to drugs or pharmacotherapeutics, while the remaining 44 could have been answered using references from a core library. A survey of community pharmacies from which an inappropriate inquiry originated revealed that only 2 of these requests came from a pharmacy lacking the necessary core reference. This study indicates that the majority of inquiries received by RDIS from community pharmacists cannot be adequately answered using a core library alone; thus, inappropriate inquiries do not contribute substantially to the growing workload of RDIS. RESUME Les demandes de renseignement des pharmacies communautaires qui sont adressees au Service d'information regional sur les medicaments (RDIS) affilie au Centre d'information sur les medicaments du Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Center, ont presque triple entre 1990 et 1995, ce qui a mis beaucoup de pression sur le personnel et les ressources de ce centre. Une etude a ete menee pour determiner si oui ou non les services de ce centre etaient utilises a bon escient pur ces clients. L'usage inopportun du centre a ete mesure en identifiant les demandes qui depassaient les competences du RDIS et celles auxquelles aurait pu repondre le medecin demandant s'il avait utilise les ouvrages de reference qu'on trouve habituellement dans une pharmacie communautaire. Des 444 demandes recues au cours de la periode de l'etude, 56 ont ete identifiees comme inopportunes. De ces dernieres, douze n’avaient aucun rapport avec les medicaments ou la pharmacotherapie, alors que les 44 autres auraient pu trouver reponse si les demandeurs avaient consulte les ouvrages de reference de la bibliotheque «centrale». Un sondage mene aupres des pharmacies communautaires qui ont fait des demandes inopportunes a revele que seulement deux de ces demandes provenaient d'un pharmacien qui n'avait pas acces a l'ouvrage de reference central necessaire pour trouver la reponse. Cette etude indique que la plupart des demandes adressees par les pharmacies communautaires au RDIS ne peuvent pas trouver de reponse satisfaisante en n'ayant recours qu'aux ouvrages de reference d'une bibliotheque centrale. Par consequent, les demandes inopportunes ne contribuent pas notablement a la charge de travail croissante du RDIS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".